Whenever people get together
peaceably to do anything there is a process of agreement involved.
The activity may depend on a set of mutually agreed-upon rules;
it may depend on someone with superior knowledge or skill coordinating
the various contributions; or it may depend on what seems to be
'intuitive' understanding of what one expects of another.

The games we played as kids
are good examples. Sometimes we played the formalized games requiring
special equipment with a written set of rules: Parcheesi, Monopoly,
Old maid, etc. The printed rules were very specific. Everyone
agreed that if they were not followed the game was not being played
properly.

Then there were the games we
learned from the older kids or from parents and teachers: Kick
the Can, King of the Hill, Hop Scotch, Dodge Ball, Red Rover,
etc. . . While there may have been written rules and reasons for
them at one time we were never aware of them. We just played as
we were taught and took any questions or disagreements to those
who had played more than we.

Other activities were made
up as we went along. Often we took turns making suggestions. When
good friends were together playing informally there were seldom
arguments. Agreements could even be reached without conversation.
There seemed to be an 'intuitive' understanding.

All three types of 'games':
1) those with strict rules, 2) those which seem to depend more
on authority than on rules, and 3) those which seem almost completely
informal and spontaneous, play a part in our adult daily lives.
The third: random activities enjoyed without perceptible rules,
would represent to most people the ideal of freedom. Sentimental
cards in gift shops may depict this type of freedom with a picture
of two young people strolling on a sandy beach, or a drawing of
little children playing on a grassy meadow. Such peaceful representations
sometimes incline one to ask why we bother with all the rules
and restrictions on personal behavior and with all the drill and
discipline that was forced on us. Why can't we all just get along
in beautiful simplicity?

Actually such pictures are
not that simple. But how does one put in the picture the values
that are necessary for a young couple to stroll contentedly on
the beach with perfect trust? How many people looking at the picture
of children playing on a grassy meadow consider the amount of
training necessary before happy children can be trusted to play
peacefully. One need only imagine what would happen to the tranquility
if the neighborhood brat were suddenly dropped into the scene.

Young people today are often
taught that the peaceful scenes represent the way life might be
if their parents, teachers, and 'society' didn't continually hassle
them. Millions are being told they have a RIGHT to make their
own personal rules, to claim personal freedom--that nobody has
a right to interfere. It is not explained to them that the peace
and contentment they seek is not accidental, but the result of
rules and strict training drilled into the young until doing what
is right becomes a part of their personalities. If rules of consideration
and constructive behavior become part of their personalities those
who are so trained are not consciously aware that any rules exist.
These are the truly liberated children. They can trust one another
knowing that lying, cheating, or stealing are not an option or
a temptation. They would not consider hitting, hurting, embarrassing
or envying one another.

The peaceful picture was begun
long before the friends met. Individually they had been impressed
with the necessity of self control and consideration. By the time
they found each other they were ready to enjoy the freedom of
trust and real understanding.

In 1901 J. L. Spalding captured
the spirit of this type of training for freedom when he wrote:

"The child is bound by the
double chain of ignorance and helplessness. He is a prisoner,
and it is the educator's business to unbar the doors and set him
free; and he can do this only by teaching him to reflect, to obey,
to act in accordance with what good sense and just laws command.
His emancipation must be a gradual and slow process; for he can
become free only through habits of self-control and industry.
He is the slave of ignorance, and knowledge can be acquired only
by long and patient labor; he is the bond-servant of his helpless
condition, and this helplessness is good for him, because it forces
him to learn obedience and self-denial, and thus acquire the moral
strength which liberates. The sense of his obligations to others
must be awakened in him, or he will not gain self-respect; the
spirit of reverence must be cultivated; he must be taught to lift
his soul to the Heavenly Father and to walk in His presence, or
the sacredness and worth of life will not be revealed to him.
He must be taught to admire those whose superiority is founded
on wisdom and virtue, or the ideal of human perfection shall be
hidden from him. In looking up to such men and women a sense of
his own dignity is brought home to him, and in following their
teaching and example he feels himself purified and exalted. Thus
little by little the meaning of freedom dawns upon him, and he
at the same time acquires the virtues which alone can prevent
its becoming a curse."

Contrast Spalding's type of
education with that promoted by advocates of values clarification,
moral reasoning, and libertarian philosophy and you may begin
to understand why many people today are so unhappy, lost, and
easily manipulated.

Erica
Carle is an independent researcher and writer. She has a B.S. degreefrom the University of Wisconsin. She has been
involved in radio andtelevision writing
and production, and has also taught math and compositionat
the private school her children attended in Brookfield, Wisconsin.For ten years she wrote a weekly column, "Truth
In Education" for WISCONSINREPORT,
and served as Education Editor for that publication.Her
books are available through Education Service Council, P. O. Box 271,
ElmGrove, Wisconsin 53122.

"Young people today are often
taught that the peaceful scenes represent the way life might be if their
parents, teachers, and 'society' didn't continually hassle them. Millions
are being told they have a RIGHT to make their own personal rules, to
claim personal freedom--that nobody has a right to interfere."